1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff, as an employee of B, was diagnosed on July 24, 2017, when he/she was hospitalized in a high-speed hospital and was under medical treatment, while he/she was hospitalized in the workplace and was in a rest.

B. On September 22, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) caused immunity and stress due to night work performed by the Plaintiff in an unsanitary environment; and (b) caused the instant injury and disease during hospitalized treatment; (c) accordingly, the instant injury and disease claimed as an occupational accident and claimed medical care benefits.

C. On December 18, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to grant medical care (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that: (a) it is difficult to find out any occupational factors that could have had a significant impact on the function of the brain-dead hospital due to the instant duties at the time of the outbreak of the injury; (b) it is difficult to find out the cause of the brain-dead infection that occurred earlier; and (c) it is difficult to view that the instant injury was caused due to the development of brain-resistant infection, and thus, it is difficult to deem that there was a proximate causal relation with the instant injury branch’s duties.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) from March 2013 to July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff carried out the business of handling stacks at night at a workplace with high dampness; (b) dust, smoke, and noise due to the access of freight vehicles, etc.; and (c) despite the occurrence of physical burden and stress due to the continuous performance of a business with high physical strength to move heavy freight from a harmful working environment, the instant wound was unlawful for the Defendant’s disposition that did not recognize a proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s work and the injury and disease of the instant case on different premise.

B. Determination 1: occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.